Jump to content

Talk:Gunns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

earlier comments

[edit]

Lacrimosus, it's correct that Gunns have been criticised for using legal action (since the company commenced a legal proceeding against Brown and others in December 2004), but I doubt that that is the major criticism levelled at it by environmentalists. The major criticisms offered from that quarter would have to be the company's actual role in the forestry and foresty products industry in Tasmania. --SilasM 07:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did Gunns actually claim that "the writ was intended to discourage public criticism of the company" I do not recall this. Xtra 23:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) oops, I missread it. Xtra 00:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag due to the massive amounts of unreferenced Original Research that dominates the articles and pushes a greenist agenda.Prester John 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response - it would be a lot more constructive if you could find the gunns or apologists citations to help improve the article, tagging is one thing, constructive help is another. Thanks SatuSuro 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unreferenced material is an option as well.Prester John 05:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies in Wikipedia that might see that as a form of editing that can be seen in a negative light. If you are unable to provide citations for the industry arguments, you are not really helping the encyclopdia - but simply engaging in pushing your POV - if you are adding industry citations - you are helping the encyclopedia to be a better place - lets face it - just criticising something is not the same as providing citations of gunns critique of the greenies - anyone can put tags or start edit wars, its the better editor who takes the time to find the gunns p.r. machine info and cites it! SatuSuro 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the POV tag. The article has plenty of references, and there have been no specific claims of POV. If there is a specific section that appears to be POV to you, please refer to it specifically. Gunns has a terrible environmental record and reputation so of course there will be plenty of criticism of it. —Pengo 01:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excess tagging

[edit]

Unnecesarry - simply placing fact template after the unreferenced part that is questioned is sufficient - making a claim of OR for an event that is reported as having happened is provocative and unnecessary - as if no editor follows up on the fact'/ citation needed - then the particluar point can be further debated here on the talk page. SatuSuro 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

I removed multiple 'vandal edits' with this edit comment "revert to older version removing vandalism by Special:Contributions/58.84.87.131 Restore uncited para, add citation for same. Amend Interstate and add sect.stub. " which also refers to the last paragraph removed as "rmv unreferenced POV". The reference has been included with out ref tags, following article precedent for citation.

Structure

[edit]

I have initiated a structure cleanup for the article to ensure that the article follows a more logical path. Additionally, all the criticisms of the company have now been grouped under a single heading which can be all just tagged as POV while cleanup work gets underway. Thewinchester (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECF and Chlorine Dioxide

[edit]

I am concerned that this sentence is unclear and slightly misleading:

"The proposal has also been criticized for not using the best technology for bleaching process, and instead using elemental chlorine (rather than hydrogen peroxide or methanol) in the production of the bleaching chemical chlorine dioxide"

Assuming the criticism about the bleaching technology is the method for creating chlorine dioxide it should read

"The proposal has also been criticized for not using the best technology for producing chlorine dioxide, used in elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching."

I don't know which catalyst they are using, either methanol or peroxide for producing chlorine dioxide. But from the comments later I assume it might be methanol because it is more likely to have some chlorine produced as a byproduct.

If the original author meant that either hydrogen peroxide or methanol is used for bleaching then that is misleading and slightly wrong. Methanol can't be used for bleaching, but hydrogen peroxide can. Riscy 02:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gunns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunns&oldid=1207486005"